Search results

That's not its intended purpose; you're thinking of the first proposal. :P (that wasn't the first proposal's intended purpose either per se, but that was the de facto direction that it was headed in)

...Wait, you guys already have that much done? o_O I was fully expecting an in-between update with the fleet order saving and some more bugs fixed, but damn, we're getting the systems update! Out of curiosity, will at least some of the the station chambers (that do things like increase mining...

...Yeah, that's the issue I hadn't looked at. I kinda forgot about ship spamming here.

Well, the drawback is that you'd be at a severe disadvantage vs. people with 'normal' ships due to the chamber in question taking up most of your TP. Basically, you would be a combination of logi+command ship in EvE, providing buffs to your fleet but also being extremely obvious, visible, and...

Same point applies. Keeping an entire empire's worth of ships fueled up is not any fun.

...Aaaand that's precisely why it won't have 'survival aspects.' Schine'd rather people be busy exploring, mining, trading, building, shooting at each other, and managing their empire than fiddling around with hunger and thirst bars.

It isn't, and it shouldn't. It'd be not only hard to balance (kek) but likely unnecessarily complicated to program, and incredibly cumbersome for the player to build and optimize TBH. Chambers should be chambers; weapons and their support systems should be their own thing.

Even for stations, a 2km-wide gate should not be possible without a fairly beefy power source. Sounds like warpgates could use a rebalance?

It doesn't suffer from combat recharge rates; I was picturing it having its own, flat 'shield regen'/chargeup time. As for amount of shields, I wasn't certain. I was envisioning basing it on chamber blockcount, but in hindsight that would be really inconsistent and kind of a bad mechanic. I was...

Autocharge ≠ autojump. An autocharger would simply top up your drive and let you activate it.

At that point, why not just have the cloaking chamber require 80%-90% of a ship's TP?

Having your shields drop is good enough. Tech point costs should be constant; you shouldn't have to open your engineering/structure panel to boot your one or two chambers when you drop your cloak :P.

How would this work? This is, after all, a multiplayer game. If you for some reason were prevented from puling up the recipe for higher-tier blocks in a factory, someone else could just make them for you. And furthermore, why? What's the point? Is it an attempt to create more gameplay? If so...

Hm, good point. I don't see the issue with non-scaling bonuses, but for some of the utility ones I can foresee abuse. I guess it doesn't matter too much, though, as the tiny stations would be easily detected and destroyed. I don't want to force people to use large stations if they don't want to...

Could this be used to create internal volume calculations and surface area calculations for new balancing possibilities and things?

Well, the ships will still be fixed to fleet AI, but you will be able to leave the fleets with an order to defend the sector, which effectively makes them do the same thing that Ship-mode AI will do.

If this was done, then they might as well allow multiple running reactors on the main ship, and let people choose what reactor they want their main ship guns to use? I don't understand the difference between these. Also, people could still clip together docked reactor blocks for turret power to...

It is not very complex to explain that stuff on docked entities is treated as part of the main entity. Swivel speed scaling with size is necessary one way or the other. Please don't make AI accuracy really bad under any condition by default as a balancing method; that is just frustrating.

...Anyway, the station construction goes well. I have been busy messing around on KSP and other games, but I've picked it back up, and the station interior is in progress.